Tea party has it wrong

It must be clear by now that by whatever name, Tea Party, Libertarian or just plain old Conservative Republican, there is an ideological foundation to this movement. Those beliefs about small government, government intrusion, unfettered free enterprise, entitlement programs, "the nanny state", they come from somewhere. That somewhere is most clearly the thinking and writing of Dr. Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate, who reigned as the American economic guru through the second half of the 20th century. And yet, why is his name never mentioned by those espousing these ideas as fact about the natural law of small government, "unfettered free enterprise", the need to protect the "job creators", and the economic drag of ensuring the general welfare of the people? Could it be that we are watching a huge self-serving movement that very simply gets it wrong on purpose?

Just about every plank of the conservative ideology today was written by Dr. Friedman. Its in his book Capitalism and Freedom that he wrote and revised for a fortieth Anniversary Edition in 2009. Yes, that means that the politics of today have roots going back to 1969. A lot of time to plan and create a political movement out of theory and opinion.

Citizens Insurance Crisis: Is it even real?

The press has been having a field day. There is real controversy in the mismanagement of Citizens Insurance. The issue came to a kind of news fruition worthy of daylight with Citizens’ ham-handed re-inspection program that typically resulted in a doubling or more of rates that had been reduced based upon mitigation discounts determined by licensed independent inspectors working at the expense of the home owner.

The new program, launched about a year ago, meant mandatory re-inspections at the expense of Citizens, or loss of all mitigation discounts. The inspector who came to my home told be straight out that if he allowed previous mitigation certifications, such as for roof strapping, that he declined to inspect due to lack of easy access, he would never get another inspection assignment. Now there’s an independent inspection program.

Interestingly, this inspector recognized that I had the proper roof attachment in the front part of the attic but disallowed it all because he could not see the other two-thirds of the roof without crawling through an existing access hole. This problem has apparently been so prevalent in the process of re-inspections that Citizens sent out letters offering to suspend increases due to loss of mitigation at the time of re-inspection for one year to allow time to create access to uninspected portions of the home. Now that would mean cutting into roof supports in order to create access to gabled roof sections. Not a realistic option. But no matter; the rate increases were implemented regardless. In the meantime, notices went out providing notification of reduced coverages on renewals across the board.

So what is this all about? Why does Citizens, with a huge insurance reserve following years of low claims due to the absence of recent hurricanes, need to increase its war chest of reserves? Guess what? This politically created insurer-of-last-resort is the focus of political disaster planning. Much of it seems to derive from the political belief of Senator Joe Negron, recent State Legislature Senate President, who believes that those in the cone of destruction ought to pay for the destruction without bothering the rest of the people of Florida. In short, Senator Negron believes that it is every man for himself, and let private enterprise step up to protect the best interests of the people. Isn’t it nice to know that in the event of another Hurricane Andrew, Wilma or Sandy, we shouldn’t have to depend upon our government or the people of Florida to step up to ensure disaster relief?

Citizens Insurance has reported cash reserves in excess of $6.8 billion against a worst possible case projection of a $14 billion storm catastrophe. To be sure, that now seems a modest estimate in light of the anticipated insurance claims from Super Storm Sandy that may amount to as much as $25 billion spread across a number of insurers. But then, this is a storm that hit the most densely populated and developed region of the United States. Doesn’t the Sandy experience beg the question as to why a high exposure region, like the Mid-Atlantic States region, can attract private insurance carriers and Florida cannot. Is there anything that Florida can do about that?

The debate over insurance reform and reform of the Citizens Insurer-of-last-resort role tends to look only at whether those in the exposed coastal regions should bear all of the costs or should the entire state, as a large risk pool, bear some exposure in order to keep rates reasonable. As it stands, after Citizens has paid out its reserves, after any re-insurance has been paid out and after any available state excess exposure funds have been paid out, all insurance premiums in Florida will be taxed as a fee to cover the additional losses. There is no such tax to build a state catastrophe fund ahead of the predicted catastrophe, which would reduce the exposure for a higher post-catastrophe tax. Common sense has nothing to do with the apparent expectation that a devastated coastal region ought to remain devastated if it cannot pay for its own recovery. It is not exactly what you might call a good neighbor disaster plan.

The value of the exposed coastal regions of the state as a whole is never considered in the debate over how Citizen’s Insurance costs will be managed. This is really about some people who just don’t want to help their neighbors in times of crisis. Those in the less exposed, non-coastal regions of the State dislike discussion that they will benefit economically in the short-run as staging areas for coastal disaster relief. Consider how Miramar and Pembroke Pines benefitted by rapid growth in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew. Nor do they consider that, with the changing weather patterns, all of Florida is at risk. Remember that Hurricane Wilma cut across the entire peninsula before churning up the Atlantic and dying off the coast of Nova Scotia. The hurricane season of 2012 was notable for the pattern of storms missing South Florida, including the late season storm Sandy that skirted our coasts before hitting New York and New Jersey.

Like good squirrels perhaps we should be thinking about the development of a state, regional and/or national disaster fund that will ensure that private insurance exposure is manageable and that there are adequate well enforced standards to ensure that insurance risk is well distributed and properly funded. Any one of us, regardless of geographic locale, ought to be assured of financially manageable insurance premiums and effective coverage that will provide a foundation for the costs of regional recovery from a disaster that will surely have economic costs double or triple the cost of actual insured losses.

Watch Gaza; Not Iran

Why the sudden outburst of violence between Israel and Gaza? Hamas in Gaza has been lobbing missiles at the border communities of Israel for years and every so often, Israel retaliates. Why the sudden heat and rapid escalation? Where are these long range missiles coming from? How did Hamas get the missiles or the technology to build them? This is like watching a magician's sleight of hand. Watch the Gaza turmoil...

 

It is not unknown that Hamas is a client of Iran, as is Hezbollah. The elections are over and a there is an electorate  endorsed policy statement by President Obama that Iran will be stopped in their progress towards nuclear arms. Iran's economy is suffering the consequences of a successful embargo that has devalued the currency by 40% and significantly restricted oil sales. What is a country to do?

 

Iran has been in need of a diversion that will distract from the current economic pressures and also restrain Israel from threatening an attack on their nuclear facilities. Yes, you heard it here first. It only makes sense that the current escalation is an Hamas proxy war with Israel serving the interests of Iran. Hamas surely cannot win in this scenario.  Israel is left with little choice other than to take out Hamas. That means the major strategic military action by Israel,  which is apparently mobilizing.

 

It is the opinion of this writer, that if there is a military incursion by Israel to take out Hamas, Hezbollah will open the second front in Northern Israel. That is how it went in 2006. We will then have the specter of Syria at war with itself and Israel at war on two fronts. All to the advantage of securing Iran from immediate political and military negative attention. Lets all hope that Israel is well prepared for this and can bring the crisis to heel quickly. And if Iran is the puppet-master in this crisis? Lets not forget Iran.

It's a matter of integrity

It's a matter of integrity

I just can’t do it. President Obama has his weak points. At the outset, President Obama sought to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis and wasted a lot of time. In the end he could only accomplish anything by negotiating with those few Republicans willing to show some independence.

Once the Congress went to a Republican majority, they made it plain. The most extreme and intransigent bloc would determine Congressional strategy and that strategy was to place the best interests of the American people second to ensuring a single term for President Obama.

How many Americans suffered long term unemployment and how many remain unemployed in a slow recovery economy because this Congress refused to work with the President to produce a bipartisan jobs bill?

It comes down to a matter of integrity. It is Mitt Romney who is constantly challenged in the media for his lack of details in his policy statements. It is Mitt Romney who offers a childish estimate of the millions of jobs that he will create miraculously in his first six weeks in office. It is Mitt Romney constantly beset by fact checkers pointing out his misinformation, gaffs and disinformation. It is Mitt Romney who accepts the PAC and illegal 501C4 advertising by billionaires who clearly believe that they can buy self-serving public policy through a Romney administration. And who can forget that we saw all of this with the previous Bush administration?

President Obama may not have been perfect. Whether you agree with the political party affiliation, the ideology or even the style of the man, or not, makes no difference. He is not the man whose political posture and integrity is being questioned. I will have to go with Obama.

Mitt Romney – Israel’s best friend?

Mitt Romney – Israel’s best friend?

 

I just don’t get it. To hear presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Republican Party and the Republican Jewish Coalition , President Obama has been inconsistent in his support of Israel and will have no need to continue his support if re-elected. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is described as a good and constant friend. Some even point to the personal friendship between Bibi Netanyahu and Gov. Romney.

According to an article in the current Jewish Journal of Broward South, South Florida Jewish voters key in Obama-Romney contest, the Republican Jewish Coalition has committed over $2 million to a very visible campaign in Florida, including “Obama…Oy Vey” billboards, newspaper advertising, buttons and t-shirts and $1.5 million in South Florida TV and cable channel advertising. A million piece mailing is anticipated from this organization, all apparently sponsored through the Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign.

Despite negative posturing by P.M. Netanyahu in favor of Mitt Romney, Israeli military and political leaders credit the Obama administration as the most supportive of Israel in recent decades both militarily and politically. The apparently poor relationship between president Obama and P.M. Netanyahu may be as much due to the latter’s friendship with Gov. Romney as due to President Obama’s criticism and pressure over the settlement policies that threaten to derail efforts towards peace.

It is this writer’s belief that a good friend not only takes an interest, but is willing to invest in the friendship. A good friend does not allow a friend to pursue folly without saying something, but will then stand by that friend through thick and thin. A bad friend will speak warmly of friendship but will allow that friend to pursue folly for their own personal gain and then be absent when most needed.

The last four years has shown President Obama to be that constant friend. Despite his criticisms of the settlement policies and stated belief that the final borders ought to be negotiable from the 1967 boundaries, President Obama has also asserted that the United States, under his administration, will be a partner with Israel in addressing the problem of a nuclear threat Iran.

On the other hand, we have Israel’s great and good friend Mitt Romney who “… insists he would be a better friend to Israel and opposes public pressure on Israel to compromise for peace with the Palestinians.” His chief national security adviser, Dan Senor declared during his recent trip to Israel that “If Israel has to take action on its own the governor would respect that decision .” It sounds so good and so simple. But that does not exactly sound like a friend who intends to be around when the you-know-what hits the fan.

This is where we have the real question of friendship. Mitt Romney has made clear that his idea of friendship with Israel is to be an uncritical supporter, anti- Palestinian and willing to let Israel take a shot at attacking a hugely larger nation with a well-equipped military, replete with high tech hardware that can reach Israel, including missiles and a navy. And he “…would respect that decision.” We haven’t heard that Mitt Romney is committed to being dragged into another Middle Eastern conflict upon the decisive action of an ally. It sounds as if Gov. Romney’s friend, Israel, would be on her own, or so he may hope.

Could it be that President Obama offers both friendship and international alliance to Israel while Mitt Romney seems to offer only a heartfelt fair-weather friendship?

No taxation with representation

It is a tired and hackneyed commentary that nobody likes taxes or that taxation is a necessary evil. The “small government” ideologists in our Florida Legislature would take the essential responsibility of tax policy away from the legislative process to enshrine fiscal limitations on our state in the Florida Constitution. I can think of nothing that could bode an ill economic future than to hamstring the ability of government to raise needed revenues for the education, health and welfare of its people, to develop and maintain infrastructure or to protect the economic viability of the state to meet financial obligations.

The Florida ballot in November will have six amendments that propose to place restrictions upon the state’s ability to raise revenue through taxation. These are Amendments 2, 3, 4, 9, 10 and 11. Not that all six of these proposed amendments are not reasonable and well intended. But, how many in this mix of proposals may pass?  Unless stricken from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court, how many of us, if asked, would vote against tax relief?  This is why we elect a legislature. It is the responsibility of our legislators to exercise the fiscal judgment and responsibility necessary to ensure the general welfare of the people and the economic health of the state. It is the Legislature that has the authority to annually determine the state’s revenue needs, tax policies and mechanisms to levy taxes through continuing, altered or new laws of taxation.  All six of these proposed taxation related Constitutional amendments, that would divest the legislature of taxation authority, have been sponsored by the Florida legislature. Apparently, nobody told our Florida Legislature’s leadership about the responsibilities of governance.

As the economy shifts, our Florida Legislature will have to find creative alternatives that may mean new taxes or significant tax increases on limited property, business and income sources where limitations have not yet been imposed. If Florida reaches a level of financial need necessary to meet the obligations of attracting business through a well educated workforce, attractive business environment and a modern infrastructure, these proposed restriction could leave us debating the merits of an income tax and an increase in corporate taxation.

Wayne Treacy - Guilty

Wayne Treacy was found guilty yesterday of felony First Degree Attempted Murder. The crime itself was a child on child crime brought on by adolescent cruel text messaging. The victim, Josie Lou Ratley, apparently made the mistake of mocking Treacy over the suicide death of his brother a year earlier. Wayne Treacy was not in a mental state of ability to cope with that tweet sized offense.

The aggressive prosecution for a maximum adult sentence of 50 years has been pursued by Maria Schneider, Esq. The lead defense counsel pursuing an insanity defense has been Russell Williams, Esq.

The psychiatrists, Dr. Hans Steiner and Dr. Alexander Neumeister, each testifying for an opposing side in the trial agreed that Wayne Treacy suffered from a severe PTSD and needed mental health care. The defense psychiatrist found that Wayne Treacy was not mentally fit or truly aware of his behavior in the beating of Mary Lou Ratley. the opposing psychiatrist stated that Wayne Treacy was mentally ill but aware of what he was doing.

The tragedy is that if the Broward County Prosecutor's office were as socially progressive as they self-promote their reputation, there would not have been an aggressive prosecution. The office of Michael Satz, Esq., the Broward County State's Attorney, is well aware that this is an adolescent on adolescent crime. They just don't seem to know how to do the right thing, or perhaps feel that it would be politically risky to promote real justice. Following is the extract of a letter written to Michael Satz by this writer any spouse, Maureen Barrett, a child advocate and Director with the Florida Suicide Prevention Coalition. The letter was sent in advance of the jury verdict:

"Dear Mr. Satz,

"You were confronted at a recent Democratic Club meeting over the prosecution of child on child crime. Your aide privately commented that the reason for the prosecution of teenagers as adults for serious crime is simply that there is no juvenile justice system to accommodate appropriate consequences for these teens. This means that juveniles are not being prosecuted for the purposes of justice but out of expediency.

"We are aware that Florida law does not allow for the incarceration of juveniles for more than 36 months. There is no dedicated medium security juvenile facility for teens who have committed violent offenses. There are no secure education and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders who have committed violent crimes. There is no mechanism for extended sentencing of a juvenile into young adulthood who has committed a serious offense as is available in other states {e.g. Massachusetts}. Nevertheless, the Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that Florida incarcerates 50% more juveniles than the national average and that 71% of those incarcerations are for non-violent misdemeanors. Florida prosecutors seem to strive for the most severe and restrictive sentencing possible for our children rather than for the most constructive and healing resolution of juvenile behavior.

"Let’s face it. Juvenile offenders are not the same as adult offenders. They do not have the understanding of behavioral limits and consequences that adults are expected to have. They do not understand consequences. They are just learning about molding their behavior to a moral standard of conduct that we expect of adults. This is particularly true of juvenile on juvenile offenders.

"Wayne Treacy is a great example of systematic prosecutory injustice simply because there is not a juvenile system that will accommodate this offense. All of the parties dealing with this offense are aware and have acknowledged that Wayne Treacy is in need of psychiatric help and treatment. Even your own psychiatric expert opined that he can have recovery with five years of mental health treatment. Nevertheless, your office, rather than pursuing this prosecution based upon juvenile justice, pursues this prosecutor to the nth degree of the law for maximum sentencing and consequences. In our humble opinion and with all due respect, this is not the kind of state attorney leadership that can result in pressure for the creation of an appropriate juvenile justice system.

"We believe that you would improve your stature as a recognized progressive prosecutor and community leader by recommending a mental health resolution to the Wayne Treacy matter, and acknowledge the lack of appropriate resources to address the problem of juvenile crime.

"We bring your attention to a recent opinion piece (The Press ofAtlantic City 7/8/12) written by a mother who lost her son to a 14 year old shooter. It took time, but she has extended forgiveness and acknowledgement of the unnecessarily harsh sentencing that comes with the prosecution of juveniles."

The fact is that the prosecution of alleged crime is not intended to provide the crime victim with a sense of retribution and justice. Our criminal justice system is designed to ensure justice for the accused and for those found guilty. The victim of a crime certainly ought to be able to expect the support of the community. It ought to be the responsibility of the state and the county to ensure that Josie Lou Ratley gets the best of medical care and opportunity for as full a recovery as may be possible. The prosecution and the defense team for Wayne Treacy ought to have been able to find a mental health solution for Wayne Treacy in a secure facility with an opportunity for recovery and restoration to his family and community at some reasonable time in the future. With an aggressive prosecution seeking a maximum sentence, as if this was a crime committed with genuine malice of forethought, what chance is there for justice? This was a crime committed by a troubled 15 year old child against another 15 year old child. Children, especially older children, are capable of such terrible behavior. But, teenagers who survive adolescence become responsible adults, often not in spite of their worst behavior, but because of what they have learned. Justice is now in the hands of presiding Circuit JudgeDavid Haimes